Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Newly Discovered Orphan Genes Defy Evolution.

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.

So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:58:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

They will come up with some silly ridiculous reasoning for it, and then say it was expected and predicted by their theory.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:07:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:58:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

They will come up with some silly ridiculous reasoning for it, and then say it was expected and predicted by their theory.

Indeed! Just like they tried to tell us that Iron could preserve dinosaur DNA for 68 million years, after having extracted it from a fossil. LOL! People believe in evolution because they want to. Not because of any evidence.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:16:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

The source: http://www.icr.org...

Sorry, but that does no automatically assume evolution is false.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Peer reviewed: The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.

http://www.nature.com...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:28:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:16:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

The source: http://www.icr.org...

Sorry, but that does no automatically assume evolution is false.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Peer reviewed: The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.

http://www.nature.com...

From your article.

THOUGHT to be... whose evolutionary origin is only POORLY UNDERSTOOD...Orphan genes MIGHT arise from...This process APPEARS to provide...

Why do I get the impression that they know absolutely nothing, and are simply making lame excuses? Anyone?

The fact remains that a significant percentage the genes, from every creature studied, have no evolutionary heritage. They appeared fully formed. You can't explain this away, but you're welcome to try. I could use a good laugh. Ell oh ell.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 1:36:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

Starting at the beginning, Orphan genes are not "newly" discovered. Indeed, they'd be old enough to vote now.

Secondly, you mentioned in your previous reply that Dinosaur DNA has been found; it hasn't; it's a completely false statement.

Thirdly, "if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed dat, it is a false theory and should be rejected".

If this were true, we wouldn't be using Newtons theory, and pretty much any theory that we have because there are always elements it can't or doesn't explain, even though it is massively accurate in almost every other way.

For example, we know Einsteins general and special relativity doesn't match all of the evidence; and yet the evidence it does explain can be explained reproducibly, is predictive and correlates massively with reality.

So this statement that a theory can either be correct or false is absolutely and completely wrong; in reality, theories can be right on some matters, and wrong on others. Indeed, in terms of evolution; it is beyond any reasonable doubt that all life shares a common ancestor, and the evidence and support for that will not change because one relatively small aspect of life is not explained by the evidence.

Moreover, even if this approach is true; it means that Creationism and ID are most assuredly false too (and indeed more false because there are many more fundamental aspects of life that remain completely unexplained using them), including the nested hierarchy, common hierarchy patterns in DNA, Embryology; the progression of life in the fossil records; the way that any way of analyzing whether two life forms are related also works on all life forms.

Interestingly enough; the accusation that Orphan Genes defy evolution, is based on a presupposition that evolution works in a very specific way all the time, and there is no explanation for how it can work any other.

Given that there is a number of explanations how orphan genes can originate, it's obviously not the case that they defy evolution. There is an explanation for them.

Now, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that the explanations are wrong, that they're nonsensical, that they don't make sense, or have fundamental logical problems; you're just objecting to them being logical explanations that are based on some evidence, without being completely proven.

What these explanations show, is that there is a logical, and evidence based reason to plausibly state that orphan genes do not defy evolution, and it's the type of thing that could be expected to happen.

So fundamentally, your initial contention that they defy evolution is doubtful, whether it's fully established or not.

In reality, science doesn't know everything; and there is often things that are unexplained, that end up being explained.

It is somewhat incoherent for you to, effectively, argue that Evolution has no explanation for X, therefore evolution is wrong; then argue that there is an explanation for X, but you don't know it for sure, so therefore evolution is wrong.

I mean, it doesn't sound particularly rational to argue:

Orphan Genes discovered 20 years ago have potential explanations that make use of our understanding of transposable elements and using our understanding of biochemistry to explain how gene regions can exist and rapidly change hiding the underlying origin of those genes in individual lineages, but it cannot be established beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the only process at work that could have this effect; and because it's not certain, evolution is complete rubbish.

Especially considering that none of the belief you have can be corroborated or validated in any way shape or form, so if you reject evolution on this grounds, you can't possibly argue that creationism or ID are correct without falling foul of such utterly contemptible intellectual hypocrisy as to render your entire position intellectually dishonest.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:21:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:36:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

Starting at the beginning, Orphan genes are not "newly" discovered. Indeed, they'd be old enough to vote now.

Secondly, you mentioned in your previous reply that Dinosaur DNA has been found; it hasn't; it's a completely false statement.

Thirdly, "if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed dat, it is a false theory and should be rejected".

If this were true, we wouldn't be using Newtons theory, and pretty much any theory that we have because there are always elements it can't or doesn't explain, even though it is massively accurate in almost every other way.

For example, we know Einsteins general and special relativity doesn't match all of the evidence; and yet the evidence it does explain can be explained reproducibly, is predictive and correlates massively with reality.

So this statement that a theory can either be correct or false is absolutely and completely wrong; in reality, theories can be right on some matters, and wrong on others. Indeed, in terms of evolution; it is beyond any reasonable doubt that all life shares a common ancestor, and the evidence and support for that will not change because one relatively small aspect of life is not explained by the evidence.

Moreover, even if this approach is true; it means that Creationism and ID are most assuredly false too (and indeed more false because there are many more fundamental aspects of life that remain completely unexplained using them), including the nested hierarchy, common hierarchy patterns in DNA, Embryology; the progression of life in the fossil records; the way that any way of analyzing whether two life forms are related also works on all life forms.

Interestingly enough; the accusation that Orphan Genes defy evolution, is based on a presupposition that evolution works in a very specific way all the time, and there is no explanation for how it can work any other.

Given that there is a number of explanations how orphan genes can originate, it's obviously not the case that they defy evolution. There is an explanation for them.

Now, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that the explanations are wrong, that they're nonsensical, that they don't make sense, or have fundamental logical problems; you're just objecting to them being logical explanations that are based on some evidence, without being completely proven.

What these explanations show, is that there is a logical, and evidence based reason to plausibly state that orphan genes do not defy evolution, and it's the type of thing that could be expected to happen.

So fundamentally, your initial contention that they defy evolution is doubtful, whether it's fully established or not.

In reality, science doesn't know everything; and there is often things that are unexplained, that end up being explained.

It is somewhat incoherent for you to, effectively, argue that Evolution has no explanation for X, therefore evolution is wrong; then argue that there is an explanation for X, but you don't know it for sure, so therefore evolution is wrong.

I mean, it doesn't sound particularly rational to argue:

Orphan Genes discovered 20 years ago have potential explanations that make use of our understanding of transposable elements and using our understanding of biochemistry to explain how gene regions can exist and rapidly change hiding the underlying origin of those genes in individual lineages, but it cannot be established beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the only process at work that could have this effect; and because it's not certain, evolution is complete rubbish.

Especially considering that none of the belief you have can be corroborated or validated in any way shape or form, so if you reject evolution on this grounds, you can't possibly argue that creationism or ID are correct without falling foul of such utterly contemptible intellectual hypocrisy as to render your entire position intellectually dishonest.

You raised some valid points, but overall, I still disagree. I believe in a Creator. I'm not that good at debating, so please take a look at this. It will take about ten minutes to read, but it completely demolishes the belief that life was the result of unguided natural forces. The author, Dr Werner Gitt after receiving his Ph.D. was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology. His many original research findings have been published in scientific journals or have been the subject of papers presented at scientific conferences and at universities in Germany and around the world. Read this. Don't just skim it. Take a good look at it. Absorb it. Then tell me you don't believe in a Creator.

http://creation.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:28:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:16:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

The source: http://www.icr.org...

Sorry, but that does no automatically assume evolution is false.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Peer reviewed: The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.

http://www.nature.com...

From your article.

THOUGHT to be... whose evolutionary origin is only POORLY UNDERSTOOD...Orphan genes MIGHT arise from...This process APPEARS to provide...

Why do I get the impression that they know absolutely nothing, and are simply making lame excuses? Anyone?

Perhaps, you're not aware of what peer reviewed papers are about, they are not lame excuses, fyi.

The fact remains that a significant percentage the genes, from every creature studied, have no evolutionary heritage. They appeared fully formed. You can't explain this away, but you're welcome to try. I could use a good laugh. Ell oh ell.

Sorry, but it appears you don't understand what is being presented here, which does not defy evolution, it is simply another branch of evolution to be explained.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:25:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:41:35 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.


An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.

In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.

The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes"orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.




So, if a scientific theory cannot explain all of the observed data, it is a false theory and should be rejected. It should be interesting to see how atheist scientists try to explain this failure of their beloved "theory"

1: The authors themselves admit that they have not yet gone through the entire genome and are not able to fully check the genetic code so many of these orphan genes may have a relative. In fact many previously thought orphan genes have been found to have a relative. However it is very likely that some orphan genes are really orphan genes.
2: Actually most of these orphan genes are non-coding which means they are not real genes. You never specified the percent of genes that are protein coding orphan genes.
3: Since many of these taxonomies diverged hundreds of millions of years ago it could have easily happened that mutations mutated the related genes until they are no longer similar. The gene itself could have been removed. A sizable percent of human nucleotides are different than those of other animals which is a lot of DNA and some DNA is going to get hit harder than others.
4: Some of these may be new genes or de novo genes. Evolution can create new genes without gene duplication. For example some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon by a fusion of two genes that had mutations so that the resulting gene did not look like the original two.

Refutation of creationist arguments:
http://ncse.com...

Paper researching the evolutionary origin of orphan genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Paper on De Novo orphan genes:
http://www.nature.com...